HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Is Mike Gillis a good GM?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-05-2013, 11:16 AM
  #101
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,989
vCash: 500
I like him as our GM but I'm miffed at how the goaltending situation was handled. Backed himself into a corner by being too patient. That said, his doomsday scenario with the goalie controversy was a stud prospect and a (PO'd) consistent elite all-star goalie, so even if this is his greatest loss, he's getting something out of it.

I think Lou Lamoriello is getting too much credit here, though. He's assuming a lot of risk in this move. Scheinder is a UFA in two years, and they have been having very poor luck with re-signing their players in that regard. Also, as per Kevin Woodley, editor of in-goal magazine...
Quote:
Kevin Woodley ‏@KevinisInGoal 30 Jun

Schneider goes from Lu to Marty spotlight + to place that wants G to play like Brodeur. As 1 ex-Devils butterfly G said: "welcome to hell"
NJ's goalie program is years behind the times and has traditionally been hard on butterfly goalies. If Schneider struggles...


Last edited by Wisp: 07-05-2013 at 12:02 PM.
Wisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 11:26 AM
  #102
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Canucks missed the playoffs two out of three years with that core before he got here. Now they've won as many division titles under him as they did in all their prior time in the NHL.

If this business is about results then Gillis should be considered an excellent GM.
This is a simplification when the discussion is how good a GM is Gillis. It isn't enough to identify 2 events - Canucks success and Gillis as GM - and infer that A was caused by B. Several significant factors clearly contributed to the Canucks' success that were largely extraneous to Gillis.

1. Maturation of core players. In 2008 all of Vancouver's current core, excluding the Sedins, Luongo, and Bieksa, were 23 years of age or younger. Kesler, Edler, Hansen, and Raymond were all just breaking into the NHL or still developing as NHL players. Add in Burrows late development and Bieksa emerging as a top 4 in that year. From 2009 on these players, who were largely from the 2003-2005 drafts, matured together to give this team a potent core.

2. Continued progression of the Sedins. Throughout their careers the Sedins followed a pattern of stepwise progression. 2001-2004 they ranged from 30-50 points consistently. 2006-2008 they ranged from 70-80 points. Their next step coincided with Gillis' arrival in 2008 and suddenly they became elite scorers producing in the range of 80-110 points. To his credit, Gillis made the decision to re-sign the Sedins in 2008 but their development is their own, not his.

3. Decline of the NW division. In 2006 3 NW teams made the playoffs. In 2007 2 NW teams made playoffs and one (Edmonton) tied Vancouver just on the outside of the playoffs. In 2009 and 2010 only one NW team outside of Vancouver made playoffs, while in 2011 and 2012 no NW team other than Vancouver made the post-season. Winning the division suddenly became a lot easier with as Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado, and Minnesota all plunged to the bottom third of the league.

4. Salary cap expansion. From 2006 to 2008 the Salary cap was $39M, $44M, and $50M. During this time Vancouver was constantly up against the cap ceiling, due largely to the large contracts given out to Luongo ($6.75M) and Naslund ($6M). While you can fault Nonis for the Naslund contract - and many have - he nonetheless paid a bigger price for his mistake under the lower cap world than Gillis has with his mistakes (Ballard, Booth). In 2009 the cap went up to $57M and, combined with Naslund's 3-year contract expiring, Vancouver suddenly could offer Mat Sundin $10M to play the 2nd line. Further expansion of the cap allowed Gillis to continue to add high salaried players, particularly on defense with Erhoff, Ballard, and Hamhuis as well as upgrade the 3rd and 4th lines with $2M-$3M players whereas Nonis had to continually resort to league minimum players on his lines. This perhaps had the largest impact on Vancouver's turnaround from 2006-2008 to 2009-2012. With the cap going down this year, you are already seeing Gillis struggle to manage contracts.


Ultimately I feel Gillis is, at best, an average GM who came into a favorable situation and took advantage of the prevailing winds. He has made several good moves (Erhoff trade, Malhotra, Hamhuis, Garrison signing), but I think, on the whole, has made more sideways (Bernier, Booth) or bad moves (Erhoff leaving, Sturm signing, handling of Hodgson and Luongo situations) than good. And to simply judge him on the team's success - a portion of which he had no direct impact on - is faulty deductive reasoning.

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 11:35 AM
  #103
Count Von Grabo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Noap. Came into a great situation. And got credited for inheriting a very good team.

Count Von Grabo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 11:40 AM
  #104
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
It's that simple to consistantly win in the NHL hey! I love this place lol...

So what exactly did Gillis do to turn the team around in one year? Here is a list of the players he brought in in 2008:

Pavol Demitra
Steve Bernier
Mats Sundin
Kyle Wellwood
Shane O'Brien

Ryan Johnson
Darcy Hordichuk
Rob Davison
Jason Krog
Ossi Vaananen
Alexandre Bolduc
Lawrence Nycholat

The bolded are the only ones that played a significant role on the team. So according to you - since the maturation and progression of the core that was already in place isn't why the team got better - the REAL reason the team went from missing the playoffs in 2008 to winning their division in 2009 is the 41 games and 9 goals they got from 37 year old UFA Mats Sundin, the 20 goals and 53 points from UFA Pavol Demitra, the 15 goals and 32 points from two second round pick Steve Bernier, and having Kyle Wellwood and Shane O'Brien play in the bottom half of our line-up?

Well if that is truly the case, then I would agree with you that winning in the NHL really is "that simple".

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 11:43 AM
  #105
Moore Money
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,461
vCash: 500
He's terrible at making trades and lying, but good at everything else.

Moore Money is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 11:49 AM
  #106
JohnHodgson
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passthedonuts View Post
I always find it amusing when a GM is judged on specific moves, other than actual results.

Mike Gillis took over a non-playoff team 2/3 seasons, changed the culture and has since:

- won 5 consecutive division titles
- won two consecutive President's Trophies,
- has the second most wins of any team in the league over the past five years
- made it as far as game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals.

That is an impressive resume, but instead people like cherry pick moves like trading Grabner or Hodgson.

Every GM in this league is going to have some blunders on their resume. They are still human beings after all. Has anyone on this forum ever made a mistake at your job? We all have, but what matters is how we correct them, learn from them, and still get the desired results that comes with our job.

At his peak I would have put Gillis in the top 5 GM's in the league, based on his current moves, he may have slipped outside the top 10.
Word. Some of his moves might look bad but he took the team to it's third career Stanley Cup appearance with 2 other great years to compete but the team just choked in the first round. Five consecutive division titles, two presidents trophy, and a Game 7 Stanley Cup Final in 5 years are very impressive results since Canucks were not a playoff team when GMMG took over.

I still believe he is a top 5 GM. His biggest 3 perceived mistakes are (Ballard, Hodgson, Schneider/Luongo).

Ballard:

At the time, we had to make the decision to choose form Grabner or Raymond as we only had one spot in the top six. Grabner had better potential, but Raymond was more proven and we needed to win now and needed immediate impact, thus making Grabner redundant. Also, we needed a physical defensive defenseman who could block shots, eat up minutes and not be injured every other game, ala Keith ballard. Let's not begin on how AV entirely mismanaged the situation, letting rookies like Tanev and Corrardo who has never played a game play over Ballard. Trade at the time seemed appropriate and helpful to the club, he took a logical risk and missed. It happens.

Hodgson:

Too early to judge the trade. Just extreme hatred for Gillis over a trade that cannot be determined yet. People forget that Kassian is a year younger and powerforwards typically take longer to develop (reach physical peak).

Schneider:

Management did not want to buy out Luongo, so he was forced to move Schneider. Did not want him in the conference (for good reason), so he took less. I can understand the logic and Bo Horvat looks to be a great piece for the next decade or so.

And all the excellent things he has done...

- Ehrhoff for free
- Sundin, helped elevate Kesler's game and was great in the playoffs
- Demitra, also helped elevate Kesler's game to form a great second line, RPM
- 2, 50+ seasons from Samuelsson, great contract at 2.5M
- Sedins re-signed to excellent contracts
- Signed Garrison for 4.6 per
- Signed Hamhuis for 4.5 per (Best defenseman we have by far)
- Re-signed Edler to an amazing contract
- Found depth without using picks (Lack, Tanev, Lain, Ericsson
- Any other contract related thing was amazing. He's definitely one of the best with contracts. Even Luongo's contract at the time when the CBA was not changed, it was a great contract to circumvent the cap to save cap space to acquire more pieces for a cup run

Off the top of my head. Too many good things to the organization.

JohnHodgson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:01 PM
  #107
JohnHodgson
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Von Grabo View Post
Noap. Came into a great situation. And got credited for inheriting a very good team.
Canucks missed playoffs two of the three previous years before he came. Try again though. In 06-07, we were division winners with 105 points, but 105 points only ranked 6th in the conference ahead of Minesota and Calgary. What is this very good team that everyone is talking about?

JohnHodgson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:11 PM
  #108
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHodgson View Post
Canucks missed playoffs two of the three previous years before he came. Try again though. In 06-07, we were division winners with 105 points, but 105 points only ranked 6th in the conference ahead of Minesota and Calgary. What is this very good team that everyone is talking about?

Look at the ages of the players on those 2006-2008 teams, the available cap space, and quality of the NW division. You'll find your answer as to why - in part - the Canucks missed the playoffs those years and why things changed suddenly in 2009. Here's a hint, it wasn't just a "culture change" or bringing in a 37 year old Mats Sundin for half a season.

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:17 PM
  #109
Ricky Bobby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Sure. He was just lucky that a team that missed the playoffs the year before he arrived suddenly got good. Funny how he gets blamed for every bad thing that happens but no credit for the good.
First year on the job after missing the playoffs under Nonis, he let Naslund and Morrison walk, signed Burrows to maybe the league's best contract and signed Sundin.
Anyways, as the winner of the inaugural GM of the year award obviously there are those who think he has done a good job.
Did Gillis suddenly make Kesler, Sedins, Edler into the players they became or did he just come along when that was going to happen anyways?

GMs mostly can't be judged till they've been on the job for 5+ years.

Remember when everybody was criticizing Burke in Toronto or Murray not to long ago in Ottawa. The fact is those GMs inherited a mess from the former GMs.

Just like Gillis inherited a team on the rise with the Nucks. He has done some good moves but he also has done some terrible moves like the whole Luongo debacle, Kassian/Ballard/Booth trades.

I consider him an average GM at best who had great timing with when he became the GM.

Ricky Bobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:23 PM
  #110
JohnHodgson
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Look at the ages of the players on those 2006-2008 teams, the available cap space, and quality of the NW division. You'll find your answer as to why - in part - the Canucks missed the playoffs those years and why things changed suddenly in 2009. Here's a hint, it wasn't just a "culture change" or bringing in a 37 year old Mats Sundin for half a season.
You mean we had no forward depth, 23rd in goals in 07-08?

Right, Gillis fixed that by bringing in Demitra, Sundin, Bernier and Wellwood, four players to help completely revamp our top nine bringing in depth and experience and definitely more scoring. He got rid of our old aging players, think Naslund and Morrison, and injected new blood. We improved to 11th in goals for the next year in 08-09. Here's a hint: Gillis did amazing. Assessed needs and found the right players.

JohnHodgson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:24 PM
  #111
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,551
vCash: 500
It is amazing to me how much fans of other teams care.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:25 PM
  #112
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,559
vCash: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
So what exactly did Gillis do to turn the team around in one year? Here is a list of the players he brought in in 2008:

Pavol Demitra
Steve Bernier
Mats Sundin
Kyle Wellwood
Shane O'Brien

Ryan Johnson
Darcy Hordichuk
Rob Davison
Jason Krog
Ossi Vaananen
Alexandre Bolduc
Lawrence Nycholat

The bolded are the only ones that played a significant role on the team. So according to you - since the maturation and progression of the core that was already in place isn't why the team got better - the REAL reason the team went from missing the playoffs in 2008 to winning their division in 2009 is the 41 games and 9 goals they got from 37 year old UFA Mats Sundin, the 20 goals and 53 points from UFA Pavol Demitra, the 15 goals and 32 points from two second round pick Steve Bernier, and having Kyle Wellwood and Shane O'Brien play in the bottom half of our line-up?

Well if that is truly the case, then I would agree with you that winning in the NHL really is "that simple".
Demitra was an important piece. 20 goals is pretty significant - if Vancouver missed the playoffs by 3 points in 2007-08, those 20 goals might have been enough to make them a playoff team. And of course, Sundin+Demitra on the team allowed AV to slide Burrows up to the Sedin line, thus creating one of the most dominant forward lines in the NHL in recent memory.

The biggest reason of the turnaround, however, was Luongo having a much better season (he struggled down the stretch in 2007-08, and was a Vezina candidate in 2008-09).

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:26 PM
  #113
Grub
First Line Troll
 
Grub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,263
vCash: 883
Canuck fan saying Absolutely not. Maybe he seemed like he was when All Nonis/Burke core was at their prime... But you can see it clearly now.

Still the same Nonis/Burke core... hasn't done much at all but making crappy moves... (Booth, Ballard) that has handcuffed this team.

No I don't feel he is a good GM.

He really handcuffed this team with the Luongo re-signing, etc.

Grub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:32 PM
  #114
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,559
vCash: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrShift4 View Post
Quick summation of my feelings

Booth trade - so ****ing bad I nearly get an aneurysm every time I think about it. Why trade for a guy with that cap hit whose biggest career highlight is getting plastered at the blueline while admiring a pass. Where's my Advil?

Hodgson/Kassian trade - good in theory. Hodgson didn't fit in and the Canucks needed a big bruising winger that could hopefully score. I just think the Canucks could have gotten more back in the deal (some sort of draft pick at least).

Ballard trade - good when it happened. Bad that he didn't trade him when it was realized that the coach would not play him.

Schneider trade - won't know for sure for a while but I think it is good. Just good to have something done with the goalie situation.



That's all that stands out right now.
Samuelsson and Sturm have scored a combined total of 16 goals since the trade, and the latter isn`t in the NHL anymore. Booth has scored 17. Trading mediocrity for mediocrity is not a bad trade. (Canucks actually cleared a slight bit of cap room in that 2-for-1 deal too.)

Ballard really should have been gone long before he became a buyout. Gillis' biggest mistake right there.

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:37 PM
  #115
Vorkosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckaholic19 View Post
Yes. A lot of his "bad moves" looked fine at the time and a lot of his criticism is based on hindsight and trading away fan favorites for the overall long term benefit of te team.

His 3 Most Criticized moves:

Ballard Trade:

When we needed non-injury prone defenseman badly, and were clearly in a "win-now" mode, the Ballard trade was a good move. We had no room for Grabner on this team and at the time it was clear that Raymond was the favorable candidate, and no defenseman drafted that late could have made an impact for years, and Ballard had been a strong offense defenseman who had played 82 games the past 3 seasons. Between the additions of him and Hamhuis we were very excited as a fan base for our defense, to the point where a lot of us were calling for Bieksa to be moved in favor of the new guys (thank god it MG did'nt)

Hodgson Trade
Its ridiculous that he has gotten as much heat as he has for this. The fans were calling for the addition of more toughness in a scoring role, where here is your answer. Yes we have to wait for this one to grow, but when you have Sedin and Kesler locked in there is no use for a player of Hodgsons skillset, and based on all of the off ice trade demands etc. this was a very good return. And really we cant criticize this one way or another for years to come.

Schneider Trade
Its this simple. 2 great goalies. Option of getting nothing for one, or a great young forward for the other. You make the move that puts your team in better long term shape, and that was moving Schneider. It makes no sense to rid your team of a star for nothing, when you can move the other star for something. Could have Gillis given less to the media to make it less of a foregone conclusion that Lu was being shopped, yes absolutely. But with the amount of coverage and day by day prying of the Vancouver media about this issue I don't blame him for cracking and tipping his hand, helping to create the "controversy" surrounding it.

He has been a fantastic contract negotiator getting our core locked up for well below market value, he has brought in new ways of approaching sleep, travel and recovery methods that have benefitted the team. Ultimately during his tenure as GM the Canucks have remained at the top of their division and cup contender every year, and until that changes I don't see how you can say he isn't doing a good job. When he came in he had to make big decisions around the framework of the team, and this summer he is facing a similar transition period. He did a great job last time, lets see how he does now.
Pretty much this you explained it pretty well, people just read what they want to read

to add:

The Ballard Trade. Grabner was so good and so highly thought of that Florida WAIVED him. It wasn't until the Islanders picked him up that he started to show flashes of brilliance. If you take away his break out year, the next season he gets 20 goals.. so the Canucks traded Howden (played 18 games in the NHL so far), a 20 goal scorer in Grabner and Bernier who did jack all in Vancouver for Ballard, a top 4 puck moving defenseman and Victor O. That's not a bad deal.

AV ruined Ballard, playing him on the wrong side, refusing to allow him to rush the puck and making him pass off the boards, ON HIS WRONG SIDE. With coaching like that he was doomed to fail in Vancouver. Hopefully he gets a better start with the Wild.

Hodgeson Trade: Cody wasn't going to be 2nd or 1st line center with Hank and Kesler, Cody wanted out, his dad wanted Cody out and Gillis refused. Cody went through 3 different agents before they finally found one that got under Gillis' skin enough to finally move him. They got toughness for him, which is what critics have always said the Canucks needed. and yet, now it's like "you don't have enough secondary scoring lulz, guess you should have kept Hodgson"

Okay.. so we keep him, for what? you think he's going to put up the points he's putting up in Buffalo on a 3rd line role playing 15 minutes a game? Instead of 1st line center playing 23 minutes?

Please.


Schneider Trade:

Born out of necessity, considering every single GM knew that Gillis was handicapped by the situation, a top 10 pick is pretty damn good. Edmonton never proposed the 1st and 2nd + prospect, that was Gillis' asking price for trading within the division and that's fine. Eddie Lack coming up will soften the loss of Schneider just fine. I mean the Canucks can't win here. No one wanted Schneider cuz he was unproven. Okay, so Gillis just unloaded an unproven goalie for a top 10 overall pick. What's the issue here?

Vorkosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:38 PM
  #116
AG
HFBoards Sponsor
 
AG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,736
vCash: 500
In short, no.

AG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:39 PM
  #117
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,630
vCash: 500
When Gillis loses Luongo after he just traded Schneider, that will look pretty bad. But then again, he'll have some cap space to work with.

TOML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:42 PM
  #118
Tleve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
It is amazing to me how much fans of other teams care.
This x 1000000

Tleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:54 PM
  #119
MrShift4
GRRRR.......Babe
 
MrShift4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer Time View Post
Samuelsson and Sturm have scored a combined total of 16 goals since the trade, and the latter isn`t in the NHL anymore. Booth has scored 17. Trading mediocrity for mediocrity is not a bad trade. (Canucks actually cleared a slight bit of cap room in that 2-for-1 deal too.)
How much cap room is tied up with Sturm and Samuelsson?
How many real goals were scored by any of them last year?
Booth is crap at that cap hit. It is pointless to mention who went the other way when we still have crap on the team tying up $.
Where is my Advil?

MrShift4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:57 PM
  #120
Passthedonuts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Oakville, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
2. Continued progression of the Sedins. Throughout their careers the Sedins followed a pattern of stepwise progression. 2001-2004 they ranged from 30-50 points consistently. 2006-2008 they ranged from 70-80 points. Their next step coincided with Gillis' arrival in 2008 and suddenly they became elite scorers producing in the range of 80-110 points. To his credit, Gillis made the decision to re-sign the Sedins in 2008 but their development is their own, not his.
Gillis acquired 2 players that had a significant impact on the production of the Sedins: Mats Sundin and Christian Ehrhoff.

Sundin added an element of leadership that was overwhelmingly positive during his half season. The Sedins and Kesler hit their peak production during or directly after his tenure.

Also Ehrhoff added an offensive element on the Canucks blueline that hadn't previously existed which helped the Sedin's production considerably. It's no coincidence their production dropped off again when he left. Henrik's production dropped 23 points and Daniel dropped 37 after Ehrhoff left.

I think Gillis's biggest mistake was deciding to keep Ballard and Bieksa instead of Ehrhoff or a defenseman with a similar game. He was too stubborn with his "internal cap" of defenseman of 4.6M to ensure nobody got paid more than Bieksa. I wouldn't haven given Ehrhoff his Buffalo deal, but at 5M over 5-6 years it would have been a re-signing worth making. Ballard should have been waived at that stage to make room for Ehrhoff.

Also I think he bought into pressure to attempt to make the team bigger and stronger after the Boston series instead of staying the course that had worked for him so well which was that of an elite puck possession team. His subsequent moves were indicative of the that - and in hindsight, not great moves. But he acknowledged this after the season ending presser, and he seems committed to rectifying it - so let's see if he does.

Passthedonuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 01:01 PM
  #121
Virtanen2Horvat
Tweet@CanucksOnARoll
 
Virtanen2Horvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,035
vCash: 462
All I have to say is Gillis is under a lot of heat right now and handled the Schneider/Luongo thing bad at the draft. I am happy he got us some great picks but still not letting Luongo know now that's bad.

Virtanen2Horvat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 01:04 PM
  #122
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,559
vCash: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcrazycanuck View Post
ON THE Vancouver board it was 80% favorable for him up till about the moment they get knocked out out of the playoffs this year. By the time they announced the Schneider trade it was at 50% by the end of the draft. I fell off the gillis fan club last year and he has done nothing to change my mind. I hate the Jason Garrison signing last year and grew to despise it every game he played as a Canuck
You're very much in the minority there among Canucks fans. $4.6 mill for a rock-solid defenceman with an offensive game is a bad signing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucbourdon View Post
he is an average GM.

He is amazing at signing contracts, minus a luongo one.

He is pretty bad at drafting and especially trading.

(IMo the schneider trade is not remotely close as his worst trade because a 9th overall pick in a deep draft is nothing to get upset about)
Agreed on being good at contract signing and bad at trading.

Still think his drafting isn't bad - the reason he had trouble drafting impact players was because he traded so many picks away while the Canucks were in "win now" mode.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
Team Gillis:

Higgins Roy Booth
Weise Lapierre Kassian

Hamhuis Garrison
Tanev Alberts
Corado Ballard

That forward group has combined for 59 points in 189 career playoff games... wow no wonder we have no scoring depth. Oh and Roy had 26 of them(one assist for us) and he's gone.

The defence is lottery worthy.

And he didn't bring in either member of the strength of our team, strong goaltending.

So there you have it, that's team Mike Gillis at work.
When you inherit a good core, shouldn't your focus be on keeping it then on trying to put your stamp on the team? And the Gillis-acquired defence is actually better than some entire NHL teams' D (like Dallas or Philadelphia).

Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksrool View Post
Well I know there is a lot of hate ever since that Schneider trade. I seriously only see a year or two left and he is going to have to do something that is going to help the team. I was happy about Gillis getting that 9th overall but still he should have got a 3rd liner or young prospect at least to go with it.

I love his scouting when it comes to rookies and some of his trades but I don't think that a inexperienced GM is going to last long. I rather have Gilman or someone with experience.
Gilman has never been an NHL GM. And I think he's better off in his current role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
Did Gillis suddenly make Kesler, Sedins, Edler into the players they became or did he just come along when that was going to happen anyways?

GMs mostly can't be judged till they've been on the job for 5+ years.

Remember when everybody was criticizing Burke in Toronto or Murray not to long ago in Ottawa. The fact is those GMs inherited a mess from the former GMs.

Just like Gillis inherited a team on the rise with the Nucks. He has done some good moves but he also has done some terrible moves like the whole Luongo debacle, Kassian/Ballard/Booth trades.

I consider him an average GM at best who had great timing with when he became the GM.
You're definitely right on having to wait to see how good a GM is.
Howson doesn't look so bad anymore now after one of his most recent acquisitions won a Vezina?

I think Gilils' acquisitions have helped the Sedins and Kesler become more productive. Getting Ehrhoff for the PP, for instance, and getting Malhotra to become the team's #1 penalty killer, freeing up Kesler for more offensive work.

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 01:07 PM
  #123
Vorkosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrShift4 View Post
How much cap room is tied up with Sturm and Samuelsson?
How many real goals were scored by any of them last year?
Booth is crap at that cap hit. It is pointless to mention who went the other way when we still have crap on the team tying up $.
Where is my Advil?
Sturm signed a 1 year deal with 2.25m
Samuelsson was worth 2.5

4.75 vs 4.2 so roughly a cap savings of half a million

Define "real" goals

Samuelsson had 14 goals with Vancouver/Florida and then 0 with Detriot

Sturm had 3 goals with Florida, and then went poof out of the league

Booth had 16 goals with Vancouver, and then 1 goal with Vancouver in an injury riddled season.

So.. 17 goals, and 17 goals.

Booth isn't crap, when AV finally got his head out of his ass and formed the AMEX line with Booth, Kesler, and Higgins, that line was flying and scoring goals. Then AV does what AV does best and messed up the lines and Booth got injured.

The trade netted the Canucks .5 million cap space. It's a win

Vorkosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 01:11 PM
  #124
MrShift4
GRRRR.......Babe
 
MrShift4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosh View Post
Sturm signed a 1 year deal with 2.25m
Samuelsson was worth 2.5

4.75 vs 4.2 so roughly a cap savings of half a million

Define "real" goals

Samuelsson had 14 goals with Vancouver/Florida and then 0 with Detriot

Sturm had 3 goals with Florida, and then went poof out of the league

Booth had 16 goals with Vancouver, and then 1 goal with Vancouver in an injury riddled season.

So.. 17 goals, and 17 goals.

Booth isn't crap, when AV finally got his head out of his ass and formed the AMEX line with Booth, Kesler, and Higgins, that line was flying and scoring goals. Then AV does what AV does best and messed up the lines and Booth got injured.

The trade netted the Canucks .5 million cap space. It's a win
Holy Crap!!!!

There is no win in cap space this year or last!!!!!
AMEX line wasn't together long enough to make the declaration that they were ever flying.
A real goal is when it goes past a goalie. Booth had none of them last year.
Booth is crap.

MrShift4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 01:18 PM
  #125
Soth
Registered User
 
Soth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
It is amazing to me how much fans of other teams care.
To be fair, out side of vancouver fans 80% of the 'other teams' posting are Toronto fans... It kind of feels like the current gf of Burke is furious with the ex who cheated on him.

Soth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.